Thread: Obama administration sues Boeing over S.C. Plant

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

wow so the union bargained for less wages and less benefits and the employees voted for that contract?

They bargained for highers wages and less benefits. They can not control over-time, the company did that. They lost more than they got, put it that way.

Another proof you don't need unions

It still ends with supply and demand. If you have jobless skilled workers begging for the job why would you give the current ones a raise?

If it's vice versa, you will do everything in your power to keep the current workers happy. You don't need union for that.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Yeah we need chinese labor laws.

Chinese have labor laws?

Originally Posted by gunnut

Chinese have labor laws?

They appear to have. I wouldn't be surprised if the worker is the center of the universe. On paper o/c. Link1 Link2

gunnut,

How would you reform unions? They control all levels of our government and are pushing California to the brink of disaster.

how would i reform them? honestly, easiest way to limit their power is to continue pursuing free trade agreements, where external pressures force unions to take ownership of reforms. another 15 years of free trade should pretty much force unions in most sectors to reform by their own.

much like how the impending collapse of the domestic car manufacturers forced unions to walk back their most egregious abuses, only in slow motion.

the absolute and relative power of unions has declined year on year since the 1960s, because unions are really throwbacks to the manufacturing/industrial-age era. membership and thus union revenue/political power has thus gone down.

the other unions, such as teacher unions and other public sector unions, should have political lobbying power severely reduced so that their main goal is to prevent individual employee abuse.

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,



how would i reform them? honestly, easiest way to limit their power is to continue pursuing free trade agreements, where external pressures force unions to take ownership of reforms. another 15 years of free trade should pretty much force unions in most sectors to reform by their own.

much like how the impending collapse of the domestic car manufacturers forced unions to walk back their most egregious abuses, only in slow motion.

the absolute and relative power of unions has declined year on year since the 1960s, because unions are really throwbacks to the manufacturing/industrial-age era. membership and thus union revenue/political power has thus gone down.

the other unions, such as teacher unions and other public sector unions, should have political lobbying power severely reduced so that their main goal is to prevent individual employee abuse.

I can live with that.

My way of reforming unions is to make them subject to anti-trust laws.

Originally Posted by gunnut

My way of reforming unions is to make them subject to anti-trust laws.

Instead of one union to have 4+? You will only stir troubles.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Instead of one union to have 4+? You will only stir troubles.

But they'll compete for the contracts. If the union gets too big, the DOJ will sue to break it up much like it did AT&T and IBM.

People have thought of this before in the early 20th century. The anti-trust laws were "fixed" to exclude labor unions.

Originally Posted by bonehead

The whole deal stinks. Boeing has been fighting unions for decades when they should have been going after a less antagonizing approach. The union could have done better as well. I worked in the Everette plant for a short while and saw first hand the dedication the employees poured into the planes (747's, and I was there for the 787 roll out) and I also saw management crap all over them like they were cockroaches that should have been exterminated. Anyone there that wore a suit and tie thought they were Gods and everyone else should bow before them. Lots of animosity there which is a shame because a better partnership would improve things all around. I only hope they build the planes in SC as well as they do in Wa. The irony is that the 787 delays are because of the many sub assembly areas all over the world. Whenever there is a delay anywhere in the world the final assembly point suffers delays. They just spread the assembly line out even further. At least they kept the other plant in the states.

Your characterization is completely opposite of everything I personally witnessed over ~20 years building Boeing airplanes.

I'm not going to bore anyone here with the stories I could tell.

The question is this: Can the NLRB actually be impartial with a Union shill at the head of the organization?

and:

What business is it of the Government's to tell Boeing where it can or can't put a manufacturing plant?

Do the Courts have jurisdiction over labor disputes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they did not. A good example is the NFL issue decision today.

Originally Posted by Julie

Do the Courts have jurisdiction over labor disputes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they did not. A good example is the NFL issue decision today.

They do Julie, but on the appellate level. The NLRB is supposed to be kind of a referee between the union and the employer. The union (or employer) files the complaint, and the NLRB investigates and (in theory) tries to resolve the problem out of court. They are supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the labor laws.

So the complaint against Boeing will be heard first by an administrative judge in Seattle, then it may be appealed to Federal Appeals Court and possibly on to the Supreme Court.

The complaint alleges that Boeing decided to locate the plant in South Carolina in retaliation against the union for previous labor stoppages. (The IAM strikes against Boeing every 3 years like clockwork.)

In this case the union had already waived the right to bargain over the location of the second 787 line in their contract. Yet the remedy the NLRB is demanding is for Boeing to relocate the S.C. production line to Seattle! WTF?

Basically the gov't is trying to force Boeing to subject the new production line to the strikes that plague their Seattle plants.

Originally Posted by highsea

In this case the union had already waived the right to bargain over the location of the second 787 line in their contract. Yet the remedy the NLRB is demanding is for Boeing to relocate the S.C. production line to Seattle! WTF?

Basically the gov't is trying to force Boeing to subject the new production line to the strikes that plague their Seattle plants.

These Unions got big-headed during the GM shakedown (which I think was VERY unfair to the investors btw).

Now, these Unions actually act like they are partial owners of these companies... WTF?

This redefines freedom and liberty in the USA as WE know it.

Originally Posted by highsea

Your characterization is completely opposite of everything I personally witnessed over ~20 years building Boeing airplanes.

I'm not going to bore anyone here with the stories I could tell.

The question is this: Can the NLRB actually be impartial with a Union shill at the head of the organization?

and:

What business is it of the Government's to tell Boeing where it can or can't put a manufacturing plant?

Boeing is a big place so I bet there are many stories for both side depending on where you were at the time and who you happened to be with. I was there when they were remolding the office towers in Everette. I overheard quite a bit when the big wigs thought they were alone. Then after some moron sprinkler fitter hit his own line and snapped an end cap off, pouring water on the 747 assembly line (twice in three weeks) the suits did not care for ANY construction workers. One day I had the elevator so It would not open on the third floor because I was working right in front of it. One of the engineers over rode the elevator because he did not think he needed to use the stairs for a floor. He opened the door, went through the caution tape and tried to move the ladder that was placed there. My apprentice was still on it at the time. He then made a snide remark to one of his colleagues about my qualification to use a laser level. I then called to my apprentice and told him to," break out the rock and the pointy stick because a bachelors degree apparently does not qualify me to use a laser". The engineer turned back and gave me the," how dare you" speech, then went off and tried to get me removed from the site. He failed of course, but he had to do some dancing when he had to explain why he over rode an elevator and went into an active construction area.

The NLRB is either ruled by a "Union shill" or a corporate shill. Like everything else in politics, the NLRB swings back and forth. Either way being impartial is not the job criteria. Boeing should be able to go wherever they want. If they move out of country I wouldn't mind taxing the crap out of their overseas profits, but other than that, the government should not have a say unless there is a matter of national security and in this case that clearly does not apply. The union can voice their displeasure but that is all they should be allowed to do.

I have no problem with unions demanding fair and equitable pay, but I have seen them demand more than equitable pay, where I work - the union has better benifits and and pay than the managers. Look in the parking lots - the Cadillacs and Corvettes are driven by the union people, the beaters and economy cars are driven by the managers. They gutted our insurance and doubled the cost to pay for the last round of union "benifits" which involved free healthcare for the union - who gets paid for overtime and does about half of what the contractors they hired during the last strike were able to do, then they laid me off to control costs (I got it back as a contractor at reduced pay). Look what they have done for the American auto industry - we were #1, what are we now #5?